Lough Atalia 100 acres update [henceforth "bikoland", home to Redhairedville]

noelogara

Robbo asked a question before the censor locked the conversation and it deserves an answer.

'' How do you think clean title can be acquired by the "committee" to the "land", if at all?
Have you had concern for the many carpet-baggers that may come out of the woodwork with their hands out; with tenuous claims to the land and an appetite for vexatious litigation?''

As I already pointed out the 100 acres of the shallow bay just like Galway bay is not registered to anybody so its a free for all. All that a committee would need would be consensus amongst the people of Galway to go ahead with the project. Nobody would have any rights over the area and so nobody could raise legal objections.

However to answer the second part of your question I have no doubt that lots of smart Galway business people recognised the potential of lough Atalia for many years and have their eye on it and you might be right that carpetbaggers might try to claim parts of it but they wouldnt have a legal leg to stand on. So theres no worry on that score, it couldnt happen. However there would be a lot of resentment in parts of the city that may feel left out. The bay is worth billions to Galway and would transform and enhance the city if reclaimed from the Atlantic salt water. Perhaps thats why nobody grabbed it. But dont hold your breath if city councillors, planners or TD's get involved.

FluffyMcCardy

The great thing about Galway is the number of fantasy projects that people put out there. An art cinema, city of culture 2020, the docklands project, the bypass, setting up a film hub, the GLUAS. All unlikely events.

So why not pave over Lough Atalia? You could build the GLUAS terminal on it or a 60000 seater stadium and a Formula one circuit. Or all three. The sky's limit!

snubbleste

A car park
and a landfill, so all on the train can gawk at our production.

_Puma_

To hell with the bypass! What Galway needs are elevated highways. We could built concrete pillars all over the city on which to mount the new roads, on city owned land. No one has any claim to the void directly above their land anyway. The sky's the limit, literally. Think of the benefits for smart Galway business people it will bring!

snubbleste

_Puma_ wrote: »

To hell with the bypass! What Galway needs are elevated highways. We could built concrete pillars all over the city on which to mount the new roads, on city owned land. No one has any claim to the void directly above their land anyway. The sky's the limit, literally. Think of the benefits for smart Galway business people it will bring!

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

?Cee?view

noelogara wrote: »

As I already pointed out the 100 acres of the shallow bay just like Galway bay is not registered to anybody so its a free for all. ........Nobody would have any rights over the area and so nobody could raise legal objections.

Really? :rolleyes:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1933/act/12/enacted/en/print

http://www.environ.ie/en/Foreshore/Introduction/FAQs/

From the second link:

What is the Foreshore?
The foreshore of Ireland is classed as the land and seabed between the high water of ordinary or medium tides (shown HWM on Ordnance Survey maps) and the twelve-mile limit (12 nautical miles equals approximately 22.24 kilometers). Foreshore also covers tidal areas of rivers particularly estuaries.

Who owns the Foreshore?
All the foreshore of Ireland is presumed to be owned by the State unless valid alternative title is provided

Links234

snubbleste wrote: »

Monorail! Monorail! Monorail!

Not actually a bad idea.

yaledo

_Puma_ wrote: »

Think of the benefits for smart Galway business people

What about us braindead slobs?

biko

I always laugh when people say "reclaim" like it was theirs in the first place.

noelogara

What is the Foreshore?
The foreshore of Ireland is classed as the land and seabed between the high water of ordinary or medium tides (shown HWM on Ordnance Survey maps) and the twelve-mile limit (12 nautical miles equals approximately 22.24 kilometers). Foreshore also covers tidal areas of rivers particularly estuaries.

Who owns the Foreshore?
All the foreshore of Ireland is presumed to be owned by the State unless valid alternative title is provided[/QUOTE]



the state never owned the foreshore. Under that 1933 act the state is entitled to take a lease of a part of the foreshore subject to covenants and conditions of the owner. Private property is enshrined in our 1937 constitution and all landowners rights and title were preserved and guaranteed by the constitution of the free state.
the fact is very few people registered their ownership interest in the land beyond their sea boundary because it was of no value to them and indeed was a danger to livestock. In Brittas Wicklow for example some landowners whose land ended with a beautiful beach took the precaution to include the beach in their ownership registration.
Many coastlines were flat and had traditional access routes which developed into roads, so few private properties touched the sea in those cases and in general the foreshore is not owned by anybody including the state for the simple reason that nobody wanted to own it. Exceptions arose at docks and built up areas but private ownership prevailed and the state had to compensate an owner if they wanted to take over any private property in those areas.
The same applies to lakes and many rivers are owned by private landlords who have various fishing rights they have value on.
So I'm afraid the foreshore may be presumed by some to be owned by the state but its not owned by anybody and therefore anybody could lay claim to the part adjoining their land if it was of value to them. The state could not stop them.
As for lough Atalia some parts of low land and gardens adjoining it are registered to some private owners but the bulk of that mass of water remains a free for all.

nuac

I agree with ?Cee?View.

Foreshore is State property

nuac

I agree with ?Cee?View.

Foreshore is usually State property

Discodog

I was told that no one can own the foreshore but then I hear that there are some "private" beaches


Maybe start a post in the legal forum

?Cee?view

noelogara wrote: »

the state never owned the foreshore. Under that 1933 act the state is entitled to take a lease of a part of the foreshore subject to covenants and conditions of the owner. Private property is enshrined in our 1937 constitution and all landowners rights and title were preserved and guaranteed by the constitution of the free state.
the fact is very few people registered their ownership interest in the land beyond their sea boundary because it was of no value to them and indeed was a danger to livestock. In Brittas Wicklow for example some landowners whose land ended with a beautiful beach took the precaution to include the beach in their ownership registration.
Many coastlines were flat and had traditional access routes which developed into roads, so few private properties touched the sea in those cases and in general the foreshore is not owned by anybody including the state for the simple reason that nobody wanted to own it. Exceptions arose at docks and built up areas but private ownership prevailed and the state had to compensate an owner if they wanted to take over any private property in those areas.
The same applies to lakes and many rivers are owned by private landlords who have various fishing rights they have value on.
So I'm afraid the foreshore may be presumed by some to be owned by the state but its not owned by anybody and therefore anybody could lay claim to the part adjoining their land if it was of value to them. The state could not stop them.
As for lough Atalia some parts of low land and gardens adjoining it are registered to some private owners but the bulk of that mass of water remains a free for all.

You're contradicting yourself here. Read clearly what you've posted:

the fact is very few people registered their ownership interest in the land beyond their sea boundary because it was of no value to them and indeed was a danger to livestock.

Now what you've quoted:

All the foreshore of Ireland is presumed to be owned by the State unless valid alternative title is provided

So, paraphrasing your own words, unless anyone "registered their ownership interest" then it is presumed owned by the State.

That's settled law. Any further discussion here on the legal aspect is probably OT though.

Zzippy

I'm pretty sure a person can only own property from the high water mark up. Foreshore is vested in the State. Individuals can have foreshore licences to use the foreshore, for example in oyster farming, or can have seaweed harvesting rights on a certain part of the foreshore, but this is not the same as ownership.
As for no objections, Lough Atalia is part of the Galway Bay SAC. It is naive in the extreme to think you could just reclaim 100 acres of a Special Area of Conservation and not have objections!

noelogara

?Cee?view wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself here. Read clearly what you've posted:

the fact is very few people registered their ownership interest in the land beyond their sea boundary because it was of no value to them and indeed was a danger to livestock.

Now what you've quoted:

All the foreshore of Ireland is presumed to be owned by the State unless valid alternative title is provided

So, paraphrasing your own words, unless anyone "registered their ownership interest" then it is presumed owned by the State.

That's settled law. Any further discussion here on the legal aspect is probably OT though.

actually the second line that you underlined is a quote from your own earlier post. you will see the quote word after it in my reply to you.
because I am new to boards it wouldnt allow me to put your links in and only your text remained so that is your mistake in not reading the thread carefully enough.
I notice that you deleted your own subsequent posts.

The position remains that the state does not own the foreshore as you so categorically say and I challenge you to show me a statute or more likely a constitutional referendum which would vest the foreshore of the state in the government of Ireland.
In fact all government property was handed over to the new free state after the transition from the British and many hospitals, army barracks, government offices, courts and police stations etc etc were held under various leases and grants from the original landowners whose rights were preserved after the transition to the republic. The state pays rents for many such premises to this day.
Tell me how the state in your opinion became the owner of the foreshore or else stop contradicting the obvious fact that nobody owns it.

noelogara

Zzippy wrote: »

I'm pretty sure a person can only own property from the high water mark up. Foreshore is vested in the State. Individuals can have foreshore licences to use the foreshore, for example in oyster farming, or can have seaweed harvesting rights on a certain part of the foreshore, but this is not the same as ownership.
As for no objections, Lough Atalia is part of the Galway Bay SAC. It is naive in the extreme to think you could just reclaim 100 acres of a Special Area of Conservation and not have objections!

You are confusing ownership of land with the grip that council planners have over land.
sure you can ask the council for a licence to harvest seaweed or put oyster beds down on sea areas. You can also have regard to the Special Areas of Conservation but they are areas designated by planners who dont actually own any of it. Its just a plan.
In point of fact the planning laws were imposed on the landowners of Ireland in 1963 by a Fianna Fail government led by Charles Haughey, Ray Burke's father Paddy Burke and Michael Moran and others and amounted to a licence to reward favoured landowners and to freeze the lands of the less favoured. They were a recipe for bribery and corruption and have led to the distortion of the property and housing market and the crash of our economy and bankruptcy of our banks who had to be bailed out by the EU to save our state. We are still very much on life support and our independence and sovereignty have been lost because of it.
you cant expect any councillor or TD to tell you that the state doesnt own what they pretend to own because they do control it through the unconstitutional planning laws.
The sad fact is nobody ever challenged the unconstitutionality of the planning laws because the lawyers engineers surveyors councillors TD's and land owners were all feeding out of the benefits that flowed from that system which stifled many an honest man and produced a nation of white elephants unmatched in the history of the planet.
If the people of Galway decided to pave over lough Atalia they would not have any problem with a land or sea owner being able to claim ownership for the reasons stated.
and I cant see the planners opposing such a people power plan.

?Cee?view

noelogara wrote: »

actually the second line that you underlined is a quote from your own earlier post. you will see the quote word after it in my reply to you.
because I am new to boards it wouldnt allow me to put your links in and only your text remained so that is your mistake in not reading the thread carefully enough.
I notice that you deleted your own subsequent posts.

WHich is why I said you quoted it rather than wrote it. I didn't delete any subsequent posts?

noelogara wrote: »

The position remains that the state does not own the foreshore as you so categorically say and I challenge you to show me a statute or more likely a constitutional referendum which would vest the foreshore of the state in the government of Ireland.
In fact all government property was handed over to the new free state after the transition from the British and many hospitals, army barracks, government offices, courts and police stations etc etc were held under various leases and grants from the original landowners whose rights were preserved after the transition to the republic. The state pays rents for many such premises to this day.
Tell me how the state in your opinion became the owner of the foreshore or else stop contradicting the obvious fact that nobody owns it.

No thanks. I already have. You've been shown that the state is presumed to have title to land over which no other title can be shown. If "nobody owns" then de jure, de facto and whatever other de you're having, the State owns it. That you have chosen to ignore it and obfuscate with spurious references to Crown title is your issue.

noelogara

?Cee?view wrote: »

WHich is why I said you quoted it rather than wrote it. I didn't delete any subsequent posts?



No thanks. I already have. You've been shown that the state is presumed to have title to land over which no other title can be shown. If "nobody owns" then de jure, de facto and whatever other de you're having, the State owns it. That you have chosen to ignore it and obfuscate with spurious references to Crown title is your issue.

You can presume all you like my friend but it remains a presumption.
Presumptions are not law.

gordongekko

Are you any relation to the Noel ogara of Dartmouth Square fame?

nuac

Re Foreshore

See Foreshore Act 1933 and amendments thereto

Re Planning legislation

Introduced by Neil Blayney then Minister for Local Government and passed in 1963, became effective on 1.10.64. Seán Lemass was Taoiseach at the time. Paddy Bourke was not involved. Micheál Ó'Móráin was a Cabinet Minister at the time but was not involved in introducing the planning legislation.

The legislation was largely based on the then UK planning legislation

?Cee?view

gordongekko wrote: »

Are you any relation to the Noel ogara of Dartmouth Square fame?

Fame or infamy?

noelogara

nuac wrote: »

Re Foreshore

See Foreshore Act 1933 and amendments thereto

Re Planning legislation

Introduced by Neil Blayney then Minister for Local Government and passed in 1963, became effective on 1.10.64. Seán Lemass was Taoiseach at the time. Paddy Bourke was not involved. Micheál Ó'Móráin was a Cabinet Minister at the time but was not involved in introducing the planning legislation.

The legislation was largely based on the then UK planning legislation

From the foundation of the state until 1963 there was no restriction on building and land owners and entrepreneurs could develop what they decided was marketable and was in demand. It was a free market without the distortation of bureaucratic planning.
In the fifties and early sixties very few had money to build.
The planning laws were almost a copy of the English town and country planning act 1948 and amounted to DeValera and his ministers telling the Irish that Fianna Fail got the land back from the Brits and now you need their permission if you want to do anything with it. The planning effectively took control of the land from the land owners and vested it in Council engineers planners and councillors who took bribes with every decision that turned a piece of farmland into a valuable piece of development land. It favoured a few.

Zzippy

noelogara wrote: »

You are confusing ownership of land with the grip that council planners have over land.
sure you can ask the council for a licence to harvest seaweed or put oyster beds down on sea areas. You can also have regard to the Special Areas of Conservation but they are areas designated by planners who dont actually own any of it. Its just a plan.
In point of fact the planning laws were imposed on the landowners of Ireland in 1963 by a Fianna Fail government led by Charles Haughey, Ray Burke's father Paddy Burke and Michael Moran and others and amounted to a licence to reward favoured landowners and to freeze the lands of the less favoured. They were a recipe for bribery and corruption and have led to the distortion of the property and housing market and the crash of our economy and bankruptcy of our banks who had to be bailed out by the EU to save our state. We are still very much on life support and our independence and sovereignty have been lost because of it.
you cant expect any councillor or TD to tell you that the state doesnt own what they pretend to own because they do control it through the unconstitutional planning laws.
The sad fact is nobody ever challenged the unconstitutionality of the planning laws because the lawyers engineers surveyors councillors TD's and land owners were all feeding out of the benefits that flowed from that system which stifled many an honest man and produced a nation of white elephants unmatched in the history of the planet.
If the people of Galway decided to pave over lough Atalia they would not have any problem with a land or sea owner being able to claim ownership for the reasons stated.
and I cant see the planners opposing such a people power plan.

Wow!

I'm not confusing anything. The fact remains that no matter whether the State owns the foreshore or not, the law says you must have a foreshore licence to carry out any form of development on the foreshore.

Getting away from the issue of ownership, your last paragraph is laughable. You might want to read about the Habitats Directive and how it is transcribed into Irish law. If you try to pave 100 acres of a SAC, planners will be the least of your concerns. People power or not!

ben.schlomo

noelogara wrote: »

You are confusing ownership of land with the grip that council planners have over land.
sure you can ask the council for a licence to harvest seaweed or put oyster beds down on sea areas. You can also have regard to the Special Areas of Conservation but they are areas designated by planners who dont actually own any of it. Its just a plan.
In point of fact the planning laws were imposed on the landowners of Ireland in 1963 by a Fianna Fail government led by Charles Haughey, Ray Burke's father Paddy Burke and Michael Moran and others and amounted to a licence to reward favoured landowners and to freeze the lands of the less favoured. They were a recipe for bribery and corruption and have led to the distortion of the property and housing market and the crash of our economy and bankruptcy of our banks who had to be bailed out by the EU to save our state. We are still very much on life support and our independence and sovereignty have been lost because of it.
you cant expect any councillor or TD to tell you that the state doesnt own what they pretend to own because they do control it through the unconstitutional planning laws.
The sad fact is nobody ever challenged the unconstitutionality of the planning laws because the lawyers engineers surveyors councillors TD's and land owners were all feeding out of the benefits that flowed from that system which stifled many an honest man and produced a nation of white elephants unmatched in the history of the planet.
If the people of Galway decided to pave over lough Atalia they would not have any problem with a land or sea owner being able to claim ownership for the reasons stated.
and I cant see the planners opposing such a people power plan.

But thats never going to happen, so.............!

noelogara

ben.schlomo wrote: »

But thats never going to happen, so.............!

Galway will remain like a spiders web with all roads leading into Eyre square and no road through the city.

noelogara

Zzippy wrote: »

Wow!

I'm not confusing anything. The fact remains that no matter whether the State owns the foreshore or not, the law says you must have a foreshore licence to carry out any form of development on the foreshore.

Getting away from the issue of ownership, your last paragraph is laughable. You might want to read about the Habitats Directive and how it is transcribed into Irish law. If you try to pave 100 acres of a SAC, planners will be the least of your concerns. People power or not!

Why not quote the exact law to back up your claim that a licence is needed for any foreshore development?
We are a nation of laws and the state cannot impinge of landowners lawful rights without legal means.
landowners have reclaimed many acres of shallow sea shore over hundreds of years and farmed that land.
the Habitats Directive and SAC etc are pipe dreams of planners and bureaucrats who have no rights over the ownership of the land or the sea. Dream on.

ben.schlomo

noelogara wrote: »

Why not quote the exact law to back up your claim that a licence is needed for any foreshore development?
We are a nation of laws and the state cannot impinge of landowners lawful rights without legal means.
landowners have reclaimed many acres of shallow sea shore over hundreds of years and farmed that land.
the Habitats Directive and SAC etc are pipe dreams of planners and bureaucrats who have no rights over the ownership of the land or the sea. Dream on.

Indeed.:D

Zzippy

noelogara wrote: »

Galway will remain like a spiders web with all roads leading into Eyre square and no road through the city.

Maybe you haven't followed Galway news for the last few years, but a) there is a process underway to construct a "bypass" to the north side of the city, via Castlegar and Dangan, and b) paving L. Atalia would do zero to alleviate traffic congestion in the city, unless your plan is to create a giant parking lot. Given your history, I wouldn't be surprised...

noelogara wrote: »

Why not quote the exact law to back up your claim that a licence is needed for any foreshore development?
We are a nation of laws and the state cannot impinge of landowners lawful rights without legal means.
landowners have reclaimed many acres of shallow sea shore over hundreds of years and farmed that land.
the Habitats Directive and SAC etc are pipe dreams of planners and bureaucrats who have no rights over the ownership of the land or the sea. Dream on.

The Habitats Directive is nothing to do with Irish planners, it is European law that we are party to, and protected habitats cannot be built on or developed except in exceptional circumstances where there is no alternative to a project vital to the public good. But I guess there is no explaining that to you, as you seem to resent any control or law that would restrict you. I suggest the look for the Anarchy forum =======>

noelogara

Zzippy wrote: »

Maybe you haven't followed Galway news for the last few years, but a) there is a process underway to construct a "bypass" to the north side of the city, via Castlegar and Dangan, and b) paving L. Atalia would do zero to alleviate traffic congestion in the city, unless your plan is to create a giant parking lot. Given your history, I wouldn't be surprised...





The Habitats Directive is nothing to do with Irish planners, it is European law that we are party to, and protected habitats cannot be built on or developed except in exceptional circumstances where there is no alternative to a project vital to the public good. But I guess there is no explaining that to you, as you seem to resent any control or law that would restrict you. I suggest the look for the Anarchy forum =======>

You misunderstand me. I suggest that lough Atalia free car park would contain thousands of cars of people who work, go shopping or live in the city centre thereby relieving the terrible congestion that is a permanent feature of Galway centre. A ten minute shuttle bus service from there to Eyre Square would keep delay to a minimum. That would free up the city centre and allow traffic to drive through quickly.
As for the bypass well that is a bypass of the city centre.


To answer your Habitat's directive I dont think lough Atalia is inhabited by any particularly threatened species of bird, fish or snail but I'm sure they would move over to Galway bay or down the coast a bit where there would be much less disturbance for them and no sewage to deal with.
But I suspect you are more concerned with the good of the birds and fish than the good of the good people of Galway and their daily struggle to get to work and home caught between the clampers, yellow lines, the guards and the heavy parking charges.

gordongekko

noelogara wrote: »

You misunderstand me. I suggest that lough Atalia free car park would contain thousands of cars of people who work, go shopping or live in the city centre thereby relieving the terrible congestion that is a permanent feature of Galway centre. A ten minute shuttle bus service from there to Eyre Square would keep delay to a minimum. That would free up the city centre and allow traffic to drive through quickly.
As for the bypass well that is a bypass of the city centre.


To answer your Habitat's directive I dont think lough Atalia is inhabited by any particularly threatened species of bird, fish or snail but I'm sure they would move over to Galway bay or down the coast a bit where there would be much less disturbance for them and no sewage to deal with.
But I suspect you are more concerned with the good of the birds and fish than the good of the good people of Galway and their daily struggle to get to work and home caught between the clampers, yellow lines, the guards and the heavy parking charges.

try googling bog cotton and galway and see how that worked out

noelogara

gordongekko wrote: »

try googling bog cotton and galway and see how that worked out

well I'm ready to help you lads to pave the lake as soon as you can get over the bog cotton blues. I'd fill that lake in three months taking the stone from about a mile away with a fleet of now idle lorries and a few diggers and loaders. Galway wouldnt know itself and by the way I dont know about the crab population but theres no bog cotton on lough Atalia so fingers crossed if you can get over the begrudgers. the crabs would move on, sideways like the planners.

WallyGUFC

Rev up and flip off back to Athlone with those crazy notions!

Is it me or are people getting far too passionate and argumentative over something that they can't possibly have any say in realistically?

Mrs OBumble

I'm thinking that it's more the craic of winding up noelogara than any real passion.

BTW, the otteress says "no".

gordongekko

noelogara wrote: »

well I'm ready to help you lads to pave the lake as soon as you can get over the bog cotton blues. I'd fill that lake in three months taking the stone from about a mile away with a fleet of now idle lorries and a few diggers and loaders. Galway wouldnt know itself and by the way I dont know about the crab population but theres no bog cotton on lough Atalia so fingers crossed if you can get over the begrudgers. the crabs would move on, sideways like the planners.

We are grand we will pass on the kind offer.

noelogara

gordongekko wrote: »

We are grand we will pass on the kind offer.

if you see a few fencing posts going up in the lake you'll know that a few enterprising Galway men and women are already staking their claims on a bit of prime real estate. Once they have it for the statutory period then its theirs to pave over. Like I said its a free for all.

Zzippy

noelogara wrote: »

if you see a few fencing posts going up in the lake you'll know that a few enterprising Galway men and women are already staking their claims on a bit of prime real estate. Once they have it for the statutory period then its theirs to pave over. Like I said its a free for all.

Do you actually believe your nonsense or are you just here for the lols? Squatters rights over the sea now, I've heard it all...

nuac

Zzippy wrote: »

Do you actually believe your nonsense or are you just here for the lols? Squatters rights over the sea now, I've heard it all...

Seems like a Freeman/WUM

?Cee?view

nuac wrote: »

Seems like a Freeman/WUM

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/a-new-lease-of-life-in-dublin-6-1.1295119

noelogara

Zzippy wrote: »

Do you actually believe your nonsense or are you just here for the lols? Squatters rights over the sea now, I've heard it all...

its not really the sea Zippy, its a shallow basin of water connected to the sea and nobody owns it right now. Its a blot on the landscape of Galway. A stake jumper could get access to it from the Dublin road end and could plant a line of boulders to fence off his claim and then he would own a very valuable piece of real estate to be developed as he wished. Nobody would or could stop him filling it in to make land of it. Its a golden oppertunity if one did own a little bit on the edge of it with access. the council owns most of the perimeter swampland on the Renmore side and the city end of it for years but they are without imagination and the councillors would be looking at the prospect of grabbing it for themselves anyway. They should have filled the lake in many years ago if they were any good at all. Look at the mess they did on Eyre Square a few years ago.

Robbo

Zzippy wrote: »

Do you actually believe your nonsense or are you just here for the lols? Squatters rights over the sea now, I've heard it all...

How to you prove animus possidendi when Poseidon exerts acts of ownership on a daily basis and enjoys sovereign immunity?

Zzippy

noelogara wrote: »

its not really the sea Zippy, its a shallow basin of water connected to the sea and nobody owns it right now. Its a blot on the landscape of Galway. A stake jumper could get access to it from the Dublin road end and could plant a line of boulders to fence off his claim and then he would own a very valuable piece of real estate to be developed as he wished. Nobody would or could stop him filling it in to make land of it. Its a golden oppertunity if one did own a little bit on the edge of it with access. the council owns most of the perimeter swampland on the Renmore side and the city end of it for years but they are without imagination and the councillors would be looking at the prospect of grabbing it for themselves anyway. They should have filled the lake in many years ago if they were any good at all. Look at the mess they did on Eyre Square a few years ago.

It's not the sea, it's just a piece of land permanently covered in seawater? This gets better and better...

Robbo

Zzippy wrote: »

It's not the sea, it's just a piece of land permanently covered in seawater? This gets better and better...

Maybe the water tastes a little salty, the level goes up and down daily and it's connected to the bay but you can't be calling it seawater.

?Cee?view

Robbo wrote: »

How to you prove animus possidendi when Poseidon exerts acts of ownership on a daily basis and enjoys sovereign immunity?

Why does this remind me of the often told Louisiana Title story? Found a version online just now.


Dear Sirs:

I traced your deed back to 1803. Here it is complete. As you probably know, Louisiana was purchased from France in 1803. France had acquired Louisiana from the Spanish as the result of a successful war against the Spaniards. The Spanish acquired Louisiana as the result of the explorations of an Italian named Columbus. Columbus was financially backed by Isabella and Ferdinand. Isabella and Ferdinand were given permission for Columbus' expedition by the Pope. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Christ is the Son of God. God made Louisiana.

noelogara

Zzippy wrote: »

It's not the sea, it's just a piece of land permanently covered in seawater? This gets better and better...

take a look at lough Atalia on the Google map to get a bit of perspective.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.2670778,-9.0434476,3080m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

biko

It is a prime location alright.


I claim it all for me, and I shall name it "bikoland". Thread title update to reflect my domain.

Redhairedguy

biko wrote: »

It is a prime location alright.


I claim it all for me, and I shall name it "bikoland". Thread title update to reflect my domain.

How very dare you sir! What about my capital city Redhairedville which rests upon those murky banks?

Robbo

In light of the excellent proposal put forward in these threads, I'd like to take this opportunity to launch a rival development. No low rent car parks or cheap tile showrooms for me, I'm going for the top of the market.

Knocknagoneen is just sitting there doing nothing; an unused pile chock full of valuable filler material. I propose through the use of carefully directed dynamiting that it's all blown inland to fill in Rusheen Bay.

Rusheen Bay Demesne will be an exclusive development of 140 luxury apartments with panoramic views built in a neo-medieval pastiche. 300 underground car parking spaces will be provided in and commercial interests taken care of with an overpriced Spar and another unit that accommodates whatever retail fad that will fail within 6 months.

If there's one thing history has taught me it's that castles should be built on sand and my development will be top notch. Turrets to defend against windsurfers, a moat with drawbridge should stand-up paddleboarders come knocking and full road connection to County Clare through a floating pontoon causeway (no need for planning because it's movable in a high wind).

Launching early 2015, reclaimed by climate change 2040. Kevin McCloud to painfully document everything for Grand Designs.

?Cee?view

The ironic thing is if there wasn't such a cracked approach being suggested by the main "developer" on this thread, it's not actually that outlandish an idea in a Galway context.

Much of Woodquay is reclaimed, hence the name. There was a quay almost as far in as McSwiggans at one stage.

Huge tracts of land were reclaimed in Salthill along Grattan Road relatively recently and consider that the house Nile Lodge was before that, on the sea front.

Sea Road (or Raleigh Row - can't remember which) is in Irish Bóthar na Sliogáin, named for the seashells that were there.

A significant proportion of the new business park at the Docks, including the site of the large oil tanks is reclaimed, within the last few years. That's only a stone's throw from Lough Atalia.

There's a right and a wrong way of going about these things though...

Mrs OBumble

biko wrote: »

It is a prime location alright.


I claim it all for me, and I shall name it "bikoland". Thread title update to reflect my domain.

Bad luck - I've already got a claim on some bits of it for the Inner Ring Road.